GR 165918; (June, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 165918 ; June 17, 2008
QUINTIN LEE, JR., petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and AMADO VILLAFANIA, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Quintin Lee, Jr. was charged with Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and Damage to Property before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Dagupan City. After trial, the MTCC convicted him. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MTCC’s decision. Petitioner then filed a petition for review before the Court of Appeals, which was initially dismissed for procedural deficiencies but later reinstated to address the merits.
Subsequently, the Court of Appeals issued a Resolution dismissing the petition outright, finding that petitioner pursued the wrong mode of appeal. The appellate court held that since the RTC decision was rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, the proper remedy was a petition for review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court. The petitioner, however, had filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. His motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this appeal by certiorari.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in dismissing the petition for review on the ground of wrong mode of appeal.
RULING
No, the Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court affirmed that the dismissal was correct. The RTC decision, which affirmed the MTCC’s judgment of conviction, was rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. The governing rule is explicit: a decision of the RTC rendered in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction should be appealed to the Court of Appeals via a petition for review under Rule 42, not a petition for certiorari under Rule 65.
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is an extraordinary remedy available only when there is no appeal or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Since an appeal via a petition for review under Rule 42 was available and was the proper remedy, resort to Rule 65 was erroneous. The Court of Appeals correctly applied this procedural rule. Its prior act of reinstating the petition to address the merits did not estop it from later correcting this fundamental jurisdictional error regarding the mode of appeal. Procedural rules are not to be disregarded, and the right to appeal is a statutory privilege that must be exercised in the manner prescribed by law.